So, I read my friends post on feminism, and while I understand many of the points she is trying to make, and more importantly, where she is coming from with them, I have to disagree on several points. Specifically, that women deserve to be paid less because of maternity leave, and that women have achieved equality with men.
In her post, she talks about the muted group theory as an example for women being oppressed, which she disagrees with. "It is essentially stating that women (and minorities) have less voice in the world. Ms. Kramarae essentially says that since men created language, they have more control over language and thus women." she writes, "I find this a very medieval ideal." But from reading the actual linked page, I'm not sure what there is to be angry about. I don't think Kramarea is implying that she herself thinks their voices have less worth in the world, but that in the world, they have less voice compared to those who hold power. While I disagree with the notion that men single-handedly are responsible for language itself, I do agree with the fact that certain words are filled with certain negative connotations for such minorities, and are empowered by those who hold power, such as words like "bitch", "slut", "whore". But those words, I think we can all agree, have been given significance through both male and female use. So going over this whole theory and commentary, I'm a little confused at what muted voice theory has to do for women being oppressed, because it has been proven that for many women and minorities---their voices are not always fully heard, advocated, encouraged, expressed, and in many cases are suppressed.
And while I agree with her that the fact that women on average receive lesser pay is often rooted in their career choices, the CNN article that is posted even states that when all factors such as majors, jobs, and hours were controlled, women were still being paid less by 7%.
"Are they lower paying because females usually fill those positions? Um, no. Females kind of generally tend to do this thing called "having babies." And that generally requires taking time off. Sure, there's maternity leave, but women often want to spend longer with their children. So thus they take more days off." This is a non-sequitur that leaves me unsure how to respond next. Are you saying that simply because women are having babies they deserve to be paid less? If you're following the CNN article, they make no association with the rates women are being paid with pregnancy. Also, maternity leave in America is a huge problem. Out of 178 countries, America is one of three that does not offer paid maternity leave benefits. And then, job security for maternity leave is shaky at best--- under the Family and Medical Leave Act, women are guaranteed their job if they choose to leave for up to 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave. And even then, those who qualify for it are sparse---the employee must have been employed for about 12 months or about 1,250 hours, and to a company that employs more than 50 people who are also in a 75 mile radius. People often forget that many women cannot simply choose between their work and their families. And with women working more and more to enforce their job security--about 2/3 of all women through 2006-2008-- often risking their lives to do so because of the high stress that comes with pregnancy (which on a side note, minorities such as black women are at higher risk of), even then, it's not enough. With many employers simply being unwilling to accommodate women through pregnancy, such as allowing water bottles to women to stay hydrated or having stools to use at cashiers, or having someone to help them do heavy-lifting. Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it's illegal to fire someone for simply being pregnant. But it's not illegal for them to fire people for being unable to do their jobs---even though with simple adjustments women could do their job fine and with fewer health risks. There is no equality to this: instead of looking at problems in the system, we are almost entirely blaming the sufferers instead.
I think the problem you have with feminism may be with straw feminism, or how you described it, radical feminism---that is, the often misandrist tendency for some feminists to believe that the only way women can succeed will be in correlation to the downfall of men, when women are superior to men. While I disagree with this notion, the most basic of feminism is that women--just as the quote said---are human beings. Whether there has been an increase in straw feminists or that their voices are simply becoming more heard, I cannot say. But I can say that if you discredit feminism by the fact that some feminists are misandrists, then I don't think you understand the point of feminism. Women should still be able to fight for equality even when their ideas are conflicting to what is best as whole---because these women are feminists, and they're fighting for women, not men.
"So I get feminism. Women should be proud of who they are, and should embrace their womanly-ness, and should want equality with men. But aren't we already there?" No, we're really not. Your argument is centered around a theory that is rooted in a strange idea but states a basic fact, numbers that blame women for their career choices, that ignore the very real and current discrimination of pregnancy in the workforce, I fail to see how feminism is a problem and how there has been an equality achieved through these facts in your argument alone. The problem I see with it is that it doesn't tackle a specific area of equity between the genders, and does not help build up to your point that women have achieved equality. And that's not even considering that then, it falls flat when looking at the rates of gender-based violence, the rates of sexual and domestic abuse towards women (and the knowledge that as many as 54% cases of such go unreported), that women worldwide are paid less, that many are subject to sexual harassment in offices that they cannot be protected from, and indeed, are often blamed for. When looking at the 510 million illiterate women worldwide and the 39 million girls who aren't in school. When knowing that if I or you choose to become mothers at one point in our lives, we'll have to make the decision between family and supporting a family.
I do understand where you're coming from in your argument. I really, really do. We're both white, middle-class teenage girls who have lived in a rather privileged position in life and society, and who have not yet experienced the full brutality of the job market or have had to toggle work between family. There are cases where women have achieved equality. But I don't think your argument supports it fully to say that feminism is a moot point, because the approach you took with the examples is too varied, and turns a blind-eye to areas where women are totally unequal. I think that a stronger way to build your argument is by trying to center it around a case where women actually do have a stronger stance with gender equality, which all of these lack. But by simply stating feminism does not matter---when you are a woman yourself, albeit, one who has not either faced the challenges that are unique to women are simply have not noticed them--- is hugely and ignorantly working against yourself and all other women.
No comments:
Post a Comment